zlacker

>>colone+(OP)
Fun fact: https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/09/security-update/ was published at 16:42:44. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/28/technology/facebook-hack-... was published at 16:45:41. NYT writes fast :)

>>testpl+a5
> “We’re taking it really seriously,” Mark Zuckerberg, the company’s chief executive, said in a conference call with reporters. “We have a major security effort at the company that hardens all of our surfaces.” He added: “I’m glad we found this. But it definitely is an issue that this happened in the first place.”

There was a conference call with reporters about the subject, so the press release public release was not the first the NYT knew about it. They likely had an embargo agreement.

>>jdminh+L9
I very very much doubt the NYT would have agreed to an embargo on a story like this. It's a major news story, not the launch of a new car.

>>Angost+Ms
Since you're just getting downvoted, I may as well say that as a member of the press it isn't uncommon to see embargoes on stuff like this. They don't say a week out "hey we've got a huge security announcement" but they do say "we have something coming out this afternoon and we're doing a briefing half an hour before if you agree not to publish before we go public."

It's often in the interest of the reporter to agree to stuff like this since publishing security issues ahead of time can have serious negative consequences.

>>devind+QD
I hadn't considered an 30 minute embargo, thanks for setting me straight on that (also an ex member of the press, but from the days when things didn't move quite so fast)